>Recent osteological and microscopic studies of the cremated remains show that many infants were several months old and had been cremated in identical fashion to animal sacrifices buried alongside them. Today, most physical anthropologists and archaeologists agree that infant sacrifice was practiced in Carthage.
Now you understand why Christianity is true and had to come about
>>18662561Rome wiped out Carthage before Christianity was ever a thing. And the infant sacrifices were a part of the Roman war propaganda. SUpposedly this was one of the reasons for "Carthago delenda est".
>>18662565Did Roman propagandists place the cremated child remains in those sacrificial urns for future archeologists to discover?
>>18662568No. Their Roman propaganda was true.My point is you don't need Christianity to have a successful movement against infant sacrifice.
>>18662568No but they did frame it as offering up living healthy infants to the gods when realistically it was just a different method of burial for yet another ancient society with a high infant mortality rate. If your 6 month old passes from sickness, what is the genuine moral difference between burying its cremated remains in a graveyard vs a temple?
>>18662561>Christianity is trueDuring the age of ignorance in Arabia ("Jahiliyyah") people used to bury their infant daughters alive in the sand because these children had a low ROI and could bring shame to the family potentially.Now you understand why Islam is true and had to come about.
>>18662577Yes, Islam is based
>>18662572How can you know that for sure, written records?
>>18662587But is it true though? According to this post:>>18662561opposition to infanticide is itself proof of the religion.Christianity and Islam can't be both true. For example: Is Jesus God?
>>18662589how can you know the infant sacrifice was true records wrote by their enemy
